Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5124603" data-attributes="member: 22779">To be fair, the "Sandbox" approach has always been very, very healthy in RPG's.  Look at just about every published setting for D&D.  Almost without fail, the published settings are presented in Sandbox fashion - here is the geography, here is the people, here are the details - now go make your campaign.In my mind, about the only publisher that bucks this trend currently is Paizo with its Pathfinder series, where each geographical area comes connected to a very strong adventure path.  Granted, you could totally ignore the AP, but, then you're ignoring about half the stuff you buy.  Presumably people buy the Pathfinder series because of the modules, not despite them.But, outside of Pathfinder, and outside very early Greyhawk which was presented primarily through adventures, just about every campaign setting is presented as a Sandbox.  What I think has changed is there are a number of posters, like myself, who prefer the Pathfinder model to the standard model, and are pretty vocal about not liking the traditional presentation of worlds in D&D.  That has sparked a fair bit of reaction from those who prefer the traditional model and this has just kept spinning.  And, of course, it's also gotten rather tightly tied to Edition Wars as well, with some posters equating sandbox with older editions, despite the fact that newer editions present campaign worlds in the exact same way.If anything, it's the "non-sandbox" approach that is fairly new and this has sparked the strong reactions.</blockquote>

Verification